By the way, you are correct in that Hatikvah is only about Jews and the hopes that Jews have. However, it does not mention other groups, does not assert any superiority over them, does not insist that the Jews are the center of the universe or any of the other elements that are part of the definition of ethnocentrism. So either, you point out where those elements are in Hatikvah, or just admit that your use of the term ethnocentric was just a bit of name calling.

Habesor

Habesor,

While I don't mean to speak for Miraj here.

You're still not grasping the notion of direct discrimination and indirect. In this case of ethno-centrism, though the Hatikvah doesn't not explicitely mention the Jewish superiority, the fact that this is meant to be a NATIONAL anthem, emphasis on national - solely mentioning a "Jewish Soul" in the context of a national identity which includes Israeli-Arabs, this is not only indirect discriminates against Israeli-Arabs but is an issue - one of ignorance.

If the American national anthem mentioned "White Christian" in it's lyrics that too would denote ethno-centrism.

Part of the Zionist problem is the notion that an ethno-religious group such as Jews solely represent the Israeli national identity.

Well, yea, they were. This was the era of increasing urban racial segregation due to migration of Blacks from the South to the industrialized North at the beginning of the Cold War. Any group that was considered to be "left-leaning" was suspect. Black Americans fell under that umbrella because the leadership of churches, civic groups and Black business groups had begun to aggitate for equal rights to Whites. Allowing Blacks to fight in the military in WWII was an experiment, not a nod to the idea that Blacks could be trusted to be loyal to the US. That was to be determined.

Due to their commitment to the very controversial movement for civil rights, prominent Blacks and their organizations were accused of communist tendencies. That happened to Dr. Martin Luther King, too. In addition, the Back to Africa movement and the Nation of Islam brought into doubt the loyalties of Black Americans. The House on Un-American activites and the FBI held hearings, beginning in 1949, to determine the loyalties of Black Americans to the US government. Studies, such as, "International Communist Statements on Racial Agitation and Riots in the United States" were promoted as evidence that communist infiltration was the cause of unrest within Black communities. This sort of activity actually continued with frequency through the 1970s.

... Black Americans have always been Americans, and as a group, have always been loyal Americans.

That cannot be said for Arabs vis-a-vis Israel.

Yes, Blacks did fight and die for the US, but they were not considered to be loyal citizens. That's one of the reasons why the civil rights movement was necessary.

How can one fight and die for one's country and not be loyal?

Black were always considered loyal to the U.S., or at least not dis-loyal. They were never suspected of being loyal to the US's enemies, certainly not as a group. If you're not sure about that, consider Americans of Japanese background during WW2 - rightly or wrongly, *they* were suspected of being disloyal. But not Blacks.

The problem that required a civil rights movement came because of whites considering blacks as inferior people, but not as disloyal people.

Disclaimer: The opinions of this member are not primarily informed by western ethnocentric paradigms, stereotypes rooted in anti-Muslim/Islam hysteria, "Israel can do no wrong" intransigence, or the perceived need to protect the Judeo-Christian world from invading foreign religions and legal concepts. By expressing such views, no inherent attempt is being made to derail or hijack threads, but that may be the result. The result is not the responsibility of this member.

Again, we agree. I don't even think it's a punative kind of ethnocentrism as far as the general population is concerned. It's more like myopia on the part of most Israeli Jews. There's an old observation, I don't know who to attribute it to, that the minority must be aware of the rules imposed, consciously and unconsciously, by the majority, but the effect on the minority is not necessarily known or cared about by the majority. That is why it is not necessarily prejudice on the part of the citizenry that causes discrimination in Israel. Government policies that don't affect them adversely are not dominant issues within the state. They are actually better known outside, where they are better publicised as part and parcel of the critique. That can help to explain much about the denial of history and policies that are incongruous with the ideals of the state they know and the internal agenda they are taught.

Well, OK, then, my "definition" is something that centers on a specific ethnicity, usually to the exclusion of other ethnicities.

So, IMO, HaTikva is certainly ethno-centric.

So is the whole concept of Israel - the Jewish State.

And that is as it should be.

That is why Jews made aliya, that is why Jews serve in the Army and fight and die to defend the country, that is why Israel is what it is. To be . . . .

The Jewish State.

It is, though, a "soft" Jewish state, in that those residents and even citizens who are not Jewish are not today summarily deported - or worse - like other countries have done with other ethnic minorities in the past. There are certain practices and laws that give a certain preference to Judaism and Jews in Israel, but that does not mean that an Arab, whether Muslim or Christian or Druze, cannot vote or become a member of Parliament, or worship or not according to his conscience. It's kind of a mix.

Disclaimer: The opinions of this member are not primarily informed by western ethnocentric paradigms, stereotypes rooted in anti-Muslim/Islam hysteria, "Israel can do no wrong" intransigence, or the perceived need to protect the Judeo-Christian world from invading foreign religions and legal concepts. By expressing such views, no inherent attempt is being made to derail or hijack threads, but that may be the result. The result is not the responsibility of this member.

... And that past disloyalty renders all Arabs as fifth column in Israel. ...

Actually, I never said that either, but my intent is that potential disloyalty renders all Arabs a potential fifth column in Israel. In fact, several have already joined the column. And it has nothing to do with the past.

... Allowing Blacks to fight in the military in WWII was an experiment ...

Uh, no, it was not.

Allowing Blacks to fight in the Civil War was an experiment. A successful one, if we can judge by the results of the 54th Massachussetts. They fought in the Indian wars, the Spanish-American War, WW1 and WW2. Of course, their regiments were kept separate, and for the most part, that's how it remained. Most people assumed that blacks would serve in support roles, but one does not place soldiers whose loyalty might be suspect in *any* military role. It was the old racist attitude, not any questions about loyalty that kept the blacks down. Integration started to occur in WW2, which is perhaps what you mean (www.historynet.com/african-american-plat...).

... The House on Un-American activites and the FBI held hearings, beginning in 1949, to determine the loyalties of Black Americans to the US government.

Oh, give me a break. They held hearings on the loyalties of such people as Frank Sinatra as well.

Blacks were and are loyal Americans. American Blacks have no other country. They have a longer history in the U.S. than many white Americans, a great deal of whose ancestors came to the U.S. during the 19th and 20th centuries.

You cannot compare them with Arabs in Israel.

You're reaching, you're trying to say "hey, we have the same civil rights struggle here in Israel as y'all did there in the U.S.", but it's just not the same.

Arabs have a different history, different language, different religion, not to mention a different culture and different socio-economic situation (which the Blacks in the U.S. also had) from Jews.

... Allowing Blacks to fight in the military in WWII was an experiment ...

Uh, no, it was not.

Allowing Blacks to fight in the Civil War was an experiment. A successful one, if we can judge by the results of the 54th Massachussetts. They fought in the Indian wars, the Spanish-American War, WW1 and WW2. Of course, their regiments were kept separate, and for the most part, that's how it remained. Most people assumed that blacks would serve in support roles, but one does not place soldiers whose loyalty might be suspect in *any* military role. It was the old racist attitude, not any questions about loyalty that kept the blacks down. Integration started to occur in WW2, which is perhaps what you mean (www.historynet.com/african-american-plat...).

My friend, shmuel, you are a smart man and an honest one, but you are wrong right about this. The lack of trust about the loyalty of Black troops was an issue that permeated White racism and the policy of segregation in the military and daily life. White Americans may not understand that era as does someone who lived it, but not only was the loyalty and competancy of Blacks and other minorities always in question, but it had to be repeatedly proven. The question was, were Blacks more loyal to their race than to a country proven to be hostile to their existance?

As an Arab-Native American who grew up during Jim Crow segregation in the US, I lived the life of a Black American when in the DC area and a suspect Arab when in Israel. We weren't trusted to be loyal on either side of the Atlantic. A close Arab relative, born in the US, became a decorated Tuskegee Airman and a civil rights hero.

During World War II, the U.S. military was racially segregated. Reflecting American society and law at the time, most black soldiers and sailors were restricted to labor battalions and other support positions. An experiment in the U.S. Army Air Forces, however, showed that given equal opportunity and training, African-Americans could fly in, command and support combat units as well as anyone. The USAAF's black fliers, the so-called "Tuskegee Airmen," served with distinction in combat and directly contributed to the eventual integration of the U.S. armed services, with the U.S. Air Force leading the way.

African-American soldiers played a significant role in World War II. More than half a million served in Europe. Despite the numbers they faced racial discrimination: prior to the war the military maintained a racially segregated force. In studies by the military, blacks were often classified as unfit for combat and were not allowed on the front lines. They were mostly given support duties, and were not allowed in units with white soldiers.

That changed in 1941, when pressure from African-American civil rights leaders convinced the government to set up all-black combat units, as experiments. They were designed to see if African-American soldiers could perform military tasks on the same level as white soldiers.

Eighty-seven-year-old Woodrow Crockett was a part of that experiment. He was a Tuskegee Airman, the first group of black pilots ever trained by the Air Force. He flew 149 missions between 1944 and 1945, protecting harbors in Italy and American bombers from German fighter planes. Mr. Crockett says the Tuskegee Airman had a lot to prove and did so. In 200 missions they never lost a bomber to enemy fire.

... The House on Un-American activites and the FBI held hearings, beginning in 1949, to determine the loyalties of Black Americans to the US government.

Oh, give me a break. They held hearings on the loyalties of such people as Frank Sinatra as well.

Blacks were and are loyal Americans. American Blacks have no other country. They have a longer history in the U.S. than many white Americans, a great deal of whose ancestors came to the U.S. during the 19th and 20th centuries.

You cannot compare them with Arabs in Israel.

You're reaching, you're trying to say "hey, we have the same civil rights struggle here in Israel as y'all did there in the U.S.", but it's just not the same.

Arabs have a different history, different language, different religion, not to mention a different culture and different socio-economic situation (which the Blacks in the U.S. also had) from Jews.

It's not the same.

True, it's not the same, but I'm not the only one who sees it as appropriately analygous. Part of the irony is that Blacks forged great alliances with Jews to achieve the dream of equal opportunity and rights in the US. Arabs and Jews in alliance can do the same for Israeli Arabs, too.

What Martin Luther King, Jr. said about unfulfilled promises, in his 'I have a dream' speech, remains true today with respect to the Arabs of Israel.

By Tom Segev

. . .

King always stressed that his dream was anchored deeply in the American dream. Replacing the word "Negro," which King and Americans in general still used then, with the words "Israeli Arab," could also anchor this dream in the Israeli dream.

The first Zionists believed in equality "the son of the Arab, the son of Nazareth and my son" (as Ze'ev Jabotinsky wrote), and promoted the thesis that the settlement and development of the land would be to the benefit of all its inhabitants, Jews and Arabs.

Continued at the link.

Disclaimer: The opinions of this member are not primarily informed by western ethnocentric paradigms, stereotypes rooted in anti-Muslim/Islam hysteria, "Israel can do no wrong" intransigence, or the perceived need to protect the Judeo-Christian world from invading foreign religions and legal concepts. By expressing such views, no inherent attempt is being made to derail or hijack threads, but that may be the result. The result is not the responsibility of this member.

One obvious difference between black Americans and white Americanss is that there is almost always a clear difference in appearance. This is not the case with Israelis and Arabs in many if not most cases. I suspect this does make a difference.

BUT, the huge majority (like 99% plus) of black Americans have been and are very loyal Americans, have always sung THEIR national anthem like all other Americans, and have served honorably and courageously in our military even when it was segregated.

Now I know Israelis who are Arabs and Muslims who serve courageously and honorably in the IDF but I can't say what their opinions are about Hatikvah.

Ken

PS. I'll add this just for the hell of it. One time, long ago when I was a young, single, sergeant E-5, in a not too fancy 'drinking' establishment in Aschaffenburg, Germany, a black soldier got into a fight with two white soldiers. Seeing me, the black soldier shouted out, 'help me bro'...and since I was already on my way to do just that anyway, he was able to concentrate on kicking the butt of one oponent while I took care of the other. It finished quickly with no lasting damage, and as the two 'opponents' staggered out one looked at my black 'bro' and me...at my pale complexion, blue eyes, and straight hair... and asked, "what's the bro bit?" The black soldier and I smiled, and just reached with our right hands to our left shoulders and touched our ranger tabs.

BUT, the huge majority (like 99% plus) of black Americans have been and are very loyal Americans, have always sung THEIR national anthem like all other Americans, and have served honorably and courageously in our military even when it was segregated.

It's a good thing that their national anthem isn't about the aspirations of White people lol.

Disclaimer: The opinions of this member are not primarily informed by western ethnocentric paradigms, stereotypes rooted in anti-Muslim/Islam hysteria, "Israel can do no wrong" intransigence, or the perceived need to protect the Judeo-Christian world from invading foreign religions and legal concepts. By expressing such views, no inherent attempt is being made to derail or hijack threads, but that may be the result. The result is not the responsibility of this member.

The Star Spangled Banner was written during the War of 1812 (its the 100th anniversary of that waste of a war - which we lost) and at a time when Black people were held in slavery in large numbers and were generally not considered citizens.

First of all, nothing is mentioned about the "white people" in the SSB.

Second of all, it's the 200th anniversary, not the 100th.

Third of all, it's a long discussion whether the U.S. won or lost that war - an argument can be made for both sides, as well as the U.K. winning or losing that war. But that's best left for a completely different thread on a completely different board.